GIS‐Based Integration of Social Vulnerability and Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment to Advance Emergency Preparedness,Planning, and Response for Severe Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

In the nuclear power industry, Level 3 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is used to estimate damage to public health and the environment if a severe accident leads to large radiological release. Current Level 3 PRA does not have an explicit inclusion of social factors and, therefore, it is not possible to perform importance ranking of social factors for risk‐informing emergency preparedness, planning, and response (EPPR). This article offers a methodology for adapting the concept of social vulnerability, commonly used in natural hazard research, in the context of a severe nuclear power plant accident. The methodology has four steps: (1) calculating a hazard‐independent social vulnerability index for the local population; (2) developing a location‐specific representation of the maximum radiological hazard estimated from current Level 3 PRA, in a geographic information system (GIS) environment; (3) developing a GIS‐based socio‐technical risk map by combining the social vulnerability index and the location‐specific radiological hazard; and (4) conducting a risk importance measure analysis to rank the criticality of social factors based on their contribution to the socio‐technical risk. The methodology is applied using results from the 2012 Surry Power Station state‐of‐the‐art reactor consequence analysis. A radiological hazard model is generated from MELCOR accident consequence code system, translated into a GIS environment, and combined with the Center for Disease Control social vulnerability index (SVI). This research creates an opportunity to explicitly consider and rank the criticality of location‐specific SVI themes based on their influence on risk, providing input for EPPR.     

How Probabilistic Risk Assessment Can Mislead Terrorism Risk Analysts

Traditional probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), of the type originally developed for engineered systems, is still proposed for terrorism risk analysis. We show that such PRA applications are unjustified in general. The capacity of terrorists to seek and use information and to actively research different attack options before deciding what to do raises unique features of terrorism risk assessment that are not adequately addressed by conventional PRA for natural and engineered systems—in part because decisions based on such PRA estimates do not adequately hedge against the different probabilities that attackers may eventually act upon. These probabilities may differ from the defender's (even if the defender's experts are thoroughly trained, well calibrated, unbiased probability assessors) because they may be conditioned on different information. We illustrate the fundamental differences between PRA and terrorism risk analysis, and suggest use of robust decision analysis for risk management when attackers may know more about some attack options than we do.     

Risk and Uncertainty Analysis in Government Safety Decisions

Probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) can be an effective tool to assess risks and uncertainties and to set priorities among safety policy options. Based on systems analysis and Bayesian probability, PRA has been applied to a wide range of cases, three of which are briefly presented here: the maintenance of the tiles of the space shuttle, the management of patient risk in anesthesia, and the choice of seismic provisions of building codes for the San Francisco Bay Area. In the quantification of a risk, a number of problems arise in the public sector where multiple stakeholders are involved. In this article, I describe different approaches to the treatments of uncertainties in risk analysis, their implications for risk ranking, and the role of risk analysis results in the context of a safety decision process. I also discuss the implications of adopting conservative hypotheses before proceeding to what is, in essence, a conditional uncertainty analysis, and I explore some implications of different levels of "conservatism" for the ranking of risk mitigation measures.     

Challenges to the Acceptance of Probabilistic Risk Analysis

This paper discusses a number of the key challenges to the acceptance and application of probabilistic risk analysis (PRA). Those challenges include: (a) the extensive reliance on subjective judgment in PRA, requiring the development of guidance for the use of PRA in risk-informed regulation, and possibly the development of robust or reference prior distributions to minimize the reliance on judgment; and (b) the treatment of human performance in PRA, including not only human error per se but also management and organizational factors more broadly. All of these areas are seen as presenting interesting research challenges at the interface between engineering and other disciplines.     

Uncertainties in Nuclear Probabilistic Risk Analyses

There are many uncertainties in a probabilistic risk analysis (PRA). We identify the different types of uncertainties and describe their implications. We then summarize the uncertainty analyses which have performed in current PRAs and characterize results which have been obtained. We draw conclusions regarding interpretations of uncertainties, areas having largest uncertainties, and needs which exist in uncertainty analysis. We finally characterize the robustness of various utilizations of PRA results.     

Intelligent Adversary Risk Analysis: A Bioterrorism Risk Management Model

The tragic events of 9/11 and the concerns about the potential for a terrorist or hostile state attack with weapons of mass destruction have led to an increased emphasis on risk analysis for homeland security. Uncertain hazards (natural and engineering) have been successfully analyzed using probabilistic risk analysis (PRA). Unlike uncertain hazards, terrorists and hostile states are intelligent adversaries who can observe our vulnerabilities and dynamically adapt their plans and actions to achieve their objectives. This article compares uncertain hazard risk analysis with intelligent adversary risk analysis, describes the intelligent adversary risk analysis challenges, and presents a probabilistic defender–attacker–defender model to evaluate the baseline risk and the potential risk reduction provided by defender investments. The model includes defender decisions prior to an attack; attacker decisions during the attack; defender actions after an attack; and the uncertainties of attack implementation, detection, and consequences. The risk management model is demonstrated with an illustrative bioterrorism problem with notional data.     

Probabilistic Risk Analysis for a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository

A probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) for a high-level radioactive waste repository is very important since it gives an estimate of its health impacts, allowing comparisons to be made with the health impacts of competing technologies. However, it is extremely difficult to develop a credible PRA for a specific repository site because of large uncertainties in future climate, hydrology, geological processes, etc. At best, such a PRA would not be understandable to the public. An alternative proposed here is to develop a PRA for an average U.S. site, taking all properties of the site to be the U.S. average. The results are equivalent to the average results for numerous randomly selected sites. Such a PRA is presented here; it is easy to understand, and it is not susceptible to substantial uncertainty. Applying the results to a specific repository site then requires only a simple, intuitively acceptable "leap of faith" in assuming that with large expenditures of effort and money, experts can select a site that would be at least as secure as a randomly selected site.     

The Repeatability of Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses for Complex Probabilistic Risk Assessments

The performance of a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for a nuclear power plant is a complex undertaking, involving the assembly of an accident frequency analysis, an accident progression analysis, a source term analysis, and a consequence analysis. Each of these analyses is, in itself, quite complex. Uncertainties enter into a PRA from each of these analyses. An important focus in recent PRAs has been to incorporate these uncertainties at each stage of the analysis, propagate the subsequent uncertainties through the entire analysis, and include uncertainty in the final results. Monte Carlo procedures based on Latin hypercube sampling provide one way to perform propagations of this type. In this paper, the results of two complete and independent Monte Carlo calculations for a recently completed PRA for a nuclear power plant are compared as a means of providing empirical evidence on the repeatability of uncertainty and sensitivity analyses for large-scale PRA calculations. These calculations use the same variables and analysis structure with two independently generated Latin hypercube samples. The results of the two calculations show a high degree of repeatability for the analysis of a very complex system.     

Site-Specific Applications of Probabilistic Health Risk Assessment: Review of the Literature Since 2000

Whether and to what extent contaminated sites harm ecologic and human health are topics of considerable interest, but also considerable uncertainty. Several federal and state agencies have approved the use of some or many aspects of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), but its site-specific application has often been limited to high-profile sites and large projects. Nonetheless, times are changing: newly developed software tools, and recent federal and state guidance documents formalizing PRA procedures, now make PRA a readily available method of analysis for even small-scale projects. This article presents and discusses a broad review of PRA literature published since 2000.     

A Discourse on the Incorporation of Organizational Factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Key Questions and Categorical Review

This article presents a discourse on the incorporation of organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)/probabilistic safety assessment (PSA), a topic of debate since the 1980s that has spurred discussions among industry, regulatory agencies, and the research community. The main contributions of this article include (1) identifying the four key open questions associated with this topic; (2) framing ongoing debates by considering differing perspectives around each question; (3) offering a categorical review of existing studies on this topic to justify the selection of each question and to analyze the challenges related to each perspective; and (4) highlighting the directions of research required to reach a final resolution for each question. The four key questions are: (I) How significant is the contribution of organizational factors to accidents and incidents? (II) How critical, with respect to improving risk assessment, is the explicit incorporation of organizational factors into PRA? (III) What theoretical bases are needed for explicit incorporation of organizational factors into PRA? (IV) What methodological bases are needed for the explicit incorporation of organizational factors into PRA? Questions I and II mainly analyze PRA literature from the nuclear domain. For Questions III and IV, a broader review and categorization is conducted of those existing cross-disciplinary studies that have evaluated the effects of organizational factors on safety (not solely PRA-based) to shed more light on future research needs.     

Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis

This paper concerns the combination of experts' probability distributions in risk analysis, discussing a variety of combination methods and attempting to highlight the important conceptual and practical issues to be considered in designing a combination process in practice. The role of experts is important because their judgments can provide valuable information, particularly in view of the limited availability of hard data regarding many important uncertainties in risk analysis. Because uncertainties are represented in terms of probability distributions in probabilistic risk analysis (PRA), we consider expert information in terms of probability distributions. The motivation for the use of multiple experts is simply the desire to obtain as much information as possible. Combining experts' probability distributions summarizes the accumulated information for risk analysts and decision-makers. Procedures for combining probability distributions are often compartmentalized as mathematical aggregation methods or behavioral approaches, and we discuss both categories. However, an overall aggregation process could involve both mathematical and behavioral aspects, and no single process is best in all circumstances. An understanding of the pros and cons of different methods and the key issues to consider is valuable in the design of a combination process for a specific PRA. The output, a combined probability distribution, can ideally be viewed as representing a summary of the current state of expert opinion regarding the uncertainty of interest.     

A Comparative Analysis of PRA and Intelligent Adversary Methods for Counterterrorism Risk Management

In counterterrorism risk management decisions, the analyst can choose to represent terrorist decisions as defender uncertainties or as attacker decisions. We perform a comparative analysis of probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) methods including event trees, influence diagrams, Bayesian networks, decision trees, game theory, and combined methods on the same illustrative examples (container screening for radiological materials) to get insights into the significant differences in assumptions and results. A key tenent of PRA and decision analysis is the use of subjective probability to assess the likelihood of possible outcomes. For each technique, we compare the assumptions, probability assessment requirements, risk levels, and potential insights for risk managers. We find that assessing the distribution of potential attacker decisions is a complex judgment task, particularly considering the adaptation of the attacker to defender decisions. Intelligent adversary risk analysis and adversarial risk analysis are extensions of decision analysis and sequential game theory that help to decompose such judgments. These techniques explicitly show the adaptation of the attacker and the resulting shift in risk based on defender decisions.     

Finding and fixing systems weaknesses: probabilistic methods and applications of engineering risk analysis.

Methods of engineering risk analysis are based on a functional analysis of systems and on the probabilities (generally Bayesian) of the events and random variables that affect their performances. These methods allow identification of a system's failure modes, computation of its probability of failure or performance deterioration per time unit or operation, and of the contribution of each component to the probabilities and consequences of failures. The model has been extended to include the human decisions and actions that affect components' performances, and the management factors that affect behaviors and can thus be root causes of system failures. By computing the risk with and without proposed measures, one can then set priorities among different risk management options under resource constraints. In this article, I present briefly the engineering risk analysis method, then several illustrations of risk computations that can be used to identify a system's weaknesses and the most cost-effective way to fix them. The first example concerns the heat shield of the space shuttle orbiter and shows the relative risk contribution of the tiles in different areas of the orbiter's surface. The second application is to patient risk in anesthesia and demonstrates how the engineering risk analysis method can be used in the medical domain to rank the benefits of risk mitigation measures, in that case, mostly organizational. The third application is a model of seismic risk analysis and mitigation, with application to the San Francisco Bay area for the assessment of the costs and benefits of different seismic provisions of building codes. In all three cases, some aspects of the results were not intuitively obvious. The probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) method allowed identifying system weaknesses and the most cost-effective way to fix them.     

Risk Prevention and Policy-Making in Automatic Systems

Accidents with automatic production systems are reported to be on the order of one in a hundred or thousand robot-years, while fatal accidents are found to occur one or two orders of magnitude less frequently. Traditions in occupational safety tend to seek for safety targets in terms of zero severe accidents for automatic systems. Decision-making requires a risk assessment balancing potential risk reduction measures and costs within the cultural environment of a production company. This paper presents a simplified procedure which acts as a decision tool. The procedure is based on a risk concept approaching prevention both in a deterministic and in a probabilistic manner. Eight accident scenarios are shown to represent the potential accident processes involving robot interactions with people. Seven prevention policies are shown to cover the accident scenarios in principle. An additional probabilistic approach may indicate which extra safety measures can be taken against what risk reduction and additional costs. The risk evaluation process aims at achieving a quantitative acceptable risk level. For that purpose, three risk evaluation methods are discussed with respect to reaching broad consensus on the safety targets.     

The SAM Framework: Modeling the Effects of Management Factors on Human Behavior in Risk Analysis

Complex engineered systems, such as nuclear reactors and chemical plants, have the potential for catastrophic failure with disastrous consequences. In recent years, human and management factors have been recognized as frequent root causes of major failures in such systems. However, classical probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) techniques do not account for the underlying causes of these errors because they focus on the physical system and do not explicitly address the link between components' performance and organizational factors. This paper describes a general approach for addressing the human and management causes of system failure, called the SAM (System-Action-Management) framework. Beginning with a quantitative risk model of the physical system, SAM expands the scope of analysis to incorporate first the decisions and actions of individuals that affect the physical system. SAM then links management factors (incentives, training, policies and procedures, selection criteria, etc.) to those decisions and actions. The focus of this paper is on four quantitative models of action that describe this last relationship. These models address the formation of intentions for action and their execution as a function of the organizational environment. Intention formation is described by three alternative models: a rational model, a bounded rationality model, and a rule-based model. The execution of intentions is then modeled separately. These four models are designed to assess the probabilities of individual actions from the perspective of management, thus reflecting the uncertainties inherent to human behavior. The SAM framework is illustrated for a hypothetical case of hazardous materials transportation. This framework can be used as a tool to increase the safety and reliability of complex technical systems by modifying the organization, rather than, or in addition to, re-designing the physical system.     

Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Wastes Buried in the Ground

The differences between probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and safety analysis (SA) are discussed, and it is shown that PRA is more suitable than SA for determining the acceptability of a technology. Since a PRA by the fault tree-event tree analysis method used for reactor safety studies does not seem to be practical for buried waste, an alternative approach is suggested using geochemical analogs. This method is illustrated for the cases of high-level and low-level radioactive waste and for chemical carcinogens released in coal burning.     

Probabilistic Risk Analyses: NRC Programs and Perspectives

The historical basis and more recent activities and products of probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) in the Atomic Energy Commission and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are reviewed. Current NRC program activities and objectives are described. The author's opinions on the best uses of PRA are presented.     

Recent Case Studies and Advancements in Probabilistic Risk Assessment

During the period from 1977 to 1984, Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc., had the lead in preparing several full scope probabilistic risk assessments for electric utilities. Five of those studies are discussed from the point of view of advancements and lessons learned. The objective and trend of these studies is toward utilization of the risk models by the plant owners as risk management tools. Advancements that have been made are in presentation and documentation of the PRAs, generation of more understandable plant level information, and improvements in methodology to facilitate technology transfer. Specific areas of advancement are in the treatment of such issues as dependent failures, human interaction, and the uncertainty in the source term. Lessons learned cover a wide spectrum and include the importance of plant specific models for meaningful risk management, the role of external events in risk, the sensitivity of contributors to choice of risk index, and the very important finding that the public risk is extremely small. The future direction of PRA is to establish less dependence on experts for in-plant application. Computerizing the PRAs such that they can be accessed on line and interactively is the key.     

Risk Assessment Based on Financial Data: Market Response to Airline Accidents

The risk of catastrophic failures, for example in the aviation and aerospace industries, can be approached from different angles (e.g., statistics when they exist, or a detailed probabilistic analysis of the system). Each new accident carries information that has already been included in the experience base or constitutes new evidence that can be used to update a previous assessment of the risk. In this paper, we take a different approach and consider the risk and the updating from the investor's point of view. Based on the market response to past airplane accidents, we examine which ones have created a surprise response and which ones are considered part of the risk of the airline business as previously assessed. To do so, we quantify the magnitude and the timing of the observed market response to catastrophic accidents, and we compare it to an estimate of the response that would be expected based on the true actual cost of the accident including direct and indirect costs (full-cost information response). First, we develop a method based on stock market data to measure the actual market response to an accident and we construct an estimate of the full-cost information response to such an event. We then compare the two figures for the immediate and the long-term response of the market for the affected firm, as well as for the whole industry group to which the firm belongs. As an illustration, we analyze a sample of ten fatal accidents experienced by major US domestic airlines during the last seven years. In four cases, we observed an abnormal market response. In these instances, it seems that the shareholders may have updated their estimates of the probability of a future accident in the affected airlines or more generally of the firm's future business prospects. This market reaction is not always easy to explain much less to anticipate, a fact which management should bear in mind when planning a firm's response to such an event.     

A Review of Plant Specific PRAs

A large number of PRA studies have been completed for specific plants at specific sites. From these studies, taken individually or collectively, many significant insights have evolved into items important to risk and safety. The content of this paper is primarily based on the material contained in the EPRI funded review of five PRA studies: Big Rock Point, Zion, Limerick, Grand Gulf, and Arkansas Nuclear One. The first three were the utility sponsored studies publicly available at the time of project initiation while the other two were deemed representative of the NRC's RSSMAP and IREP programs respectively. The results of PRA studies are usually expressed in terms of core melt frequencies, radionuclide release frequencies, and frequencies of occurrence of different reactor accident consequences (e.g., early and latent fatalities) depending on the level of PRA. These subjects are prominently addressed in this paper. One of the results of a PRA study is identification of a relatively small number of accident sequences that represent the dominant contributors to core melt. An analysis of the salient features of the dominant accident sequences from eleven PRA's yielded a characterization of accident sequence categories discussed at some length. Impact of external events is discussed very briefly. Next to an explicit quantification of public risk or core melt frequency, the identification of specific safety concerns and the evaluation of possible solutions to implement risk management are probably the best recognized and most widely used applications of PRA. Several illustrative examples are briefly discussed. Human interactions are extremely important contributors to safety and reliability of the plants. A review of PRA studies concluded that it was necessary to account for five types of human interactions; some of which may mitigate while others may exacerbate an accident sequence.